DRT wrote:I would suggest avoiding the use of squiggles. (Calem, Pocas, Vale Meao). These abbreviations are intended to make life simple. Don't condemn your readers to a life sentence of searching for squiggles that don't obviously exist on their keyboard.

Sort-of. There should not be both Cá and Ca; there should not be both Pç and Pc; there should not be both Mã and Ma. That means that being limited to ASCII does not introduce ambiguity. But there’s no harm in the canonical version being correct.

DRT wrote:I agree with everything JDAW has said in response to other suggestions.

As everybody should.

Outstanding question:

jdaw1 wrote:Quinta de Vale Meão: VM or Mã? Perhaps I prefer the latter.

Glenn E. wrote:Cockburn Quinta dos Canais should be CkC, not CC
Croft Quinta da Roeda should be CrR, not CR
Messias Quinta do Cachão should be MsC, not MC.

General rule: keep the Producer abbreviation intact when adding a qualifier.

General rule: brevity good. The rules conflict. There is precedent for CR ...

I missed the above in my first scan through the list, but agree with Glenn that the Producer abbreviation once defined should be kept the same whether with/without additions. This is a case of clarity over brevity for me. Note that even JDAW sometimes appear to favour clarity over brevity (TVVV where TVV would be sufficient to be unique and shorter; but hence my argument for ChAA - even if ChA may have appeared previously).

jdaw1 wrote:Quinta de Vale Meão: VM or Mã? Perhaps I prefer the latter.

VM for me based on previous (we already have GB which is not Graham Quinta do Bingo, so yes there is a minor lack of clarity between houses vs quintas unless we were to define a rule that all producer abbreviations must include 1+ capitals followed by 1 lower - but that would be so much change from what is in use and understood by all that I don't think we should make such a change. So yes, occasional ambiguity acceptable on grounds of practicality).

Glenn E. wrote:Cockburn Quinta dos Canais should be CkC, not CC
Croft Quinta da Roeda should be CrR, not CR
Messias Quinta do Cachão should be MsC, not MC.

General rule: keep the Producer abbreviation intact when adding a qualifier.

General rule: brevity good. The rules conflict. There is precedent for CR ...

I missed the above in my first scan through the list, but agree with Glenn that the Producer abbreviation once defined should be kept the same whether with/without additions. This is a case of clarity over brevity for me. Note that even JDAW sometimes appear to favour clarity over brevity (TVVV where TVV would be sufficient to be unique and shorter; but hence my argument for ChAA - even if ChA may have appeared previously).

Good spot on the inconsistency, which I’d rather resolve by shortening TVVV to TVV. Am I alone?

Glenn E. wrote:Cockburn Quinta dos Canais should be CkC, not CC
Croft Quinta da Roeda should be CrR, not CR
Messias Quinta do Cachão should be MsC, not MC.

General rule: keep the Producer abbreviation intact when adding a qualifier.

General rule: brevity good. The rules conflict. There is precedent for CR ...

I missed the above in my first scan through the list, but agree with Glenn that the Producer abbreviation once defined should be kept the same whether with/without additions. This is a case of clarity over brevity for me. Note that even JDAW sometimes appear to favour clarity over brevity (TVVV where TVV would be sufficient to be unique and shorter; but hence my argument for ChAA - even if ChA may have appeared previously).

Good spot on the inconsistency, which I’d rather resolve by shortening TVVV to TVV. Am I alone?

I hope so. If you're not, there are a number of other places where you have favoured clarity over brevity; I'm hesitant to point them all out for fear of making the list less readable; Please just give in

PhilW wrote:I hope so. If you're not, there are a number of other places where you have favoured clarity over brevity; I'm hesitant to point them all out for fear of making the list less readable; Please just give in

Backward compatibility also desirable, so reluctant to fold on CR and MC. We haven’t used CC/CkC, nor ChA/ChAA, so am willing to concede on them.

Precedent can be wrong, as it is in this case. The format should be consistent.

I did not list other oddities, judging them insufficient to break with precedent. (Kh instead of Kr, Kn, or even WK for one. The 'h' is silent, so its appearance in an abbreviation is... odd at best.) These, however, I feel should be corrected for both clarity and consistency.

jdaw1 wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:DG bothers me, as it appears to be a Dow Quinta. I do not see a viable alternative. There are numerous others that bother me for similar reasons, with equally lacking alternatives. GB and GC, for example. (GL and GM are Graham estates, but GB and GC aren't?) As further information, BN doesn't bother me as much because Burmester doesn't have any SQVP bottlings, so the issue for me is mostly confined to cases that might cause confusion.

The only logical solution is Dw = Dow, and that because Glenn gets confused by Duff Gordon. Not going there.

Agreed. As noted, I do not see a viable alternative. I mentioned it only in case it might spark an alternative from someone else.

jdaw1 wrote:Quinta de Vale Meão: VM or Mã? Perhaps I prefer the latter.

I agree with Derek that letters not displayed on the keyboard should not be used. That said, I prefer VM to Ma (or Mã) regardless. Do you refer to the Port as "Meão" alone? I do not. Thus VM over Mã.

Similarly, if you wish to shorten TVVV it should be shortened to VVV, not TVV, as that's how we refer to the Port. (I do not recommend shortening the official abbreviation, as doing so would break formatting consistency.)

jdaw1 wrote:Backward compatibility also desirable, so reluctant to fold on CR and MC. We haven’t used CC/CkC, nor ChA/ChAA, so am willing to concede on them.

Understood. In that case, I recommend a simple and easy solution: post a clarification/notice of change in the summary thread indicating the change. As the book is/will be a permanent record, the rules should be as standard and clear as possible upon publication. If truly desired, the old threads could be edited to conform.

DR and KL now stand in contrast for me with TTF, TSQ, TVVV, OBV, and BBR. (And, to a lesser extent, ChA/ChAA.) I understand the argument that "Senora" and "Sao" are less relevant words, but the inconsistency now grates. We clearly use longer abbreviations, so why not DSR and KSL?

Glenn E. wrote:Precedent can be wrong, as it is in this case. The format should be consistent.

If that is the team theory — precedent binned — I’ll submit. Though something is wrong with the idea of Port people casting away traditional as if it were a mere commercial convenience to be replaced with a cost-saving measure.

Glenn E. wrote:(Kh instead of Kr, Kn, or even WK for one. The 'h' is silent, so its appearance in an abbreviation is... odd at best.)

The ‘h’ is silent, which is a good objection. WK?

Glenn E. wrote:VM over Mã.

Already agreed. Done.

Glenn E. wrote:Similarly, if you wish to shorten TVVV it should be shortened to VVV, not TVV, as that's how we refer to the Port. (I do not recommend shortening the official abbreviation, as doing so would break formatting consistency.)

I’ve submitted.

Glenn E. wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:Backward compatibility also desirable, so reluctant to fold on CR and MC. We haven’t used CC/CkC, nor ChA/ChAA, so am willing to concede on them.

Understood. In that case, I recommend a simple and easy solution: post a clarification/notice of change in the summary thread indicating the change. As the book is/will be a permanent record, the rules should be as standard and clear as possible upon publication. If truly desired, the old threads could be edited to conform.

I really like the Cr/CR pair. Really like. Allow the elegance. This isn’t a programming language—perfect consistency isn’t going to happen.

I’ll tolerate the extra character in CC/CkC, nor ChA/ChAA, but not happily. It makes the placemats so much less elegant.

Omitted because almost never drunk in the UK. Added Rc = Porto Rocha; and updated Sz = Porto Souza.

Glenn E. wrote:DR and KL now stand in contrast for me with TTF, TSQ, TVVV, OBV, and BBR. (And, to a lesser extent, ChA/ChAA.) I understand the argument that "Senora" and "Sao" are less relevant words, but the inconsistency now grates. We clearly use longer abbreviations, so why not DSR and KSL?

This isn’t a programming language—perfect consistency isn’t going to happen. Some is sacrificed for brevity and elegance. Both O and OBV are listed, and the B and V are words with oomph. TSQ unavoidable and rare; TVVV should be shortened but I’m submitting to you; BBR very much the name of the firm. Would be happy with TF instead of TTF.

Glenn E. wrote:Precedent can be wrong, as it is in this case. The format should be consistent.

If that is the team theory — precedent binned — I’ll submit. Though something is wrong with the idea of Port people casting away traditional as if it were a mere commercial convenience to be replaced with a cost-saving measure.

Tradition has merit, but so does deciding to change something for the right reason. Cost-saving is not the right analogy - we're the ones wanting more letters

I'm perfectly happy with Kh even if Kr might have seemed more natural, and would stay with tradition as well for M&S (vs MS) etc. I'm equally happy with TTF, TSR and others. Personally I prefer Kh (or Kr) to WK, since many bottles are primarily labelled Krohn (especially the VP stencils).

I can accept the odd exception, especially where well known and previously used. I personally prefer DSR and KSL to DR and DL, but would be willing to concede those too. I do think CkC better than CC though and ChAA has also been used previously; and would stay with TTF. As far as others above go, there are several cases where other options would have been possible, but I see insufficient reason for change to them.

Glenn E. wrote:Precedent can be wrong, as it is in this case. The format should be consistent.

If that is the team theory — precedent binned — I’ll submit. Though something is wrong with the idea of Port people casting away traditional as if it were a mere commercial convenience to be replaced with a cost-saving measure.

There is nothing wrong with this. Today we have decided that there is a new way of doing things. Tomorrow we will declare that way to be traditional, perhaps even "an ancient tradition". Isn't that how things are supposed to work in the Port industry?

On the shortening of single quinta abreviations: don't do it. The producers always refer to the quintas you are discussing here by their full names (often minus the "Quinta d*"). No one ever says Taylor's Feita.

I still feel that we should be as consistent as possible, but will bend to the will of the team. This is our one real chance to update and standardize... once it is in print we're pretty much stuck with it. Not all that long ago Ck would have been C, but we made that change.

I prefer Kr (or, less so, Kn) to WK or Kh. I have many bottles of Krohn in which Wiese is only listed in the fine print. No one other than a Port geek would know that the firm's full name is Wiese & Krohn from those bottles.

Cr/CR doesn't look like a pair to me. It looks like Ports from two different producers - the first Croft, and the second being some unknown shipper with two words or possibly some new "C" shipper with an "R" quinta. But I will go with the group if Cr/CR is ultimately the decision.

I believe that I tend toward clarity over brevity, so am happy with TTF, TSQ, TVVV, OBV, and BBR as they are. To them I would add DSR and KSL. (DSR done, I now note.) To me, Senhora is at least as oomphy as Boa. And Sao means Saint, which seems pretty oomphy to me.

No, really, NNSC? I have a bottle of their 2009 LBV if you'd like a picture. (At least I think it's the 2009 LBV... but I have a bottle of something from them.)

VZ for me, too.

As previously noted, there are numerous other small things I would change that I have not bothered to bring up because they are not significant enough to warrant discussion. Kr over Kh was the most significant of those.

Glenn E. wrote:I still feel that we should be as consistent as possible, but will bend to the will of the team. This is our one real chance to update and standardize... once it is in print we're pretty much stuck with it.

That is fair, and why this thread was re-awakened.

Glenn E. wrote:I prefer Kr (or, less so, Kn) to WK or Kh. I have many bottles of Krohn in which Wiese is only listed in the fine print. No one other than a Port geek would know that the firm's full name is Wiese & Krohn from those bottles.

Glenn E. wrote:Cr/CR doesn't look like a pair to me. It looks like Ports from two different producers - the first Croft, and the second being some unknown shipper with two words or possibly some new "C" shipper with an "R" quinta. But I will go with the group if Cr/CR is ultimately the decision.

Side-by-side, it’s a splendid pair.

Glenn E. wrote:I believe that I tend toward clarity over brevity, so am happy with TTF, TSQ, TVVV, OBV, and BBR as they are. To them I would add DSR …. (DSR done, I now note.) To me, Senhora is at least as oomphy as Boa. … VZ for me, too.

We disagree. If there’s a strongly-held consensus against me, I’ll fold, but it needs to be strong as KL plenty clear, and supported by brevity and precedent.

Glenn E. wrote:No, really, NNSC? I have a bottle of their 2009 LBV if you'd like a picture. (At least I think it's the 2009 LBV... but I have a bottle of something from them.)

This omission to be fixed, but ideally more concisely. Would Nv be acceptable? (Is there risk of confusion with Quinta da Fonte Nova (FN?) or with any of the Quinta do Noval possibilities — Noval Silval, Quinta do Noval Quinta do Marco, Quinta do Noval Silval (NS?), Quinta do Noval Quinta do Silval?) But NNSC11 is just too long for where it needs to go.

Glenn E. wrote:As previously noted, there are numerous other small things I would change that I have not bothered to bring up because they are not significant enough to warrant discussion. Kr over Kh was the most significant of those.

Now is the chance. Or hold thy peace.

Also changing one name. GB = Gonzalez Byass rather than González Byass, as the Port was never labelled with the accent even though the modern Sherry company does use it.

VZ for me also. In terms of the others still to be determined, I go back to my first post regarding Krohn and agree with Glenn that Kr sounds more 'natural' than any of the other alternatives (I would also disagree regarding Krohn's lack of presence in the UK-it's been a regular fixture in two wine shops in Swansea alone!). I would still be inclined towards CrR rather than CR to avoid the unwary believing the latter is Cr. However, I will defer to Julian's obvious passion on this one. No fixed views on KL v KSL (less seen than the Kr).

Glenn E. wrote:I prefer Kr (or, less so, Kn) to WK or Kh. I have many bottles of Krohn in which Wiese is only listed in the fine print. No one other than a Port geek would know that the firm's full name is Wiese & Krohn from those bottles.

Glenn E. wrote:No, really, NNSC? I have a bottle of their 2009 LBV if you'd like a picture. (At least I think it's the 2009 LBV... but I have a bottle of something from them.)

This omission to be fixed, but ideally more concisely. Would Nv be acceptable? (Is there risk of confusion with Quinta da Fonte Nova (FN?) or with any of the Quinta do Noval possibilities — Noval Silval, Quinta do Noval Quinta do Marco, Quinta do Noval Silval (NS?), Quinta do Noval Quinta do Silval?) But NNSC11 is just too long for where it needs to go.

Nv seems like it should work. My memory was telling me that there's already a different Quinta called Quinta Nova (or something similar), but I cannot find any such Quinta via Google. Further supporting Nv is the fact that the Quinta's own website is http://www.quintanova.com.

This should (hopefully) not cause confusion with Quinta do Noval, as that's been given 'N' as its abbreviation. Thus making NS appropriate for all variations of Silval (per the GM ruling), and NM appropriate for Noval Quinta do Marco. Polo.

jdaw1 wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:As previously noted, there are numerous other small things I would change that I have not bothered to bring up because they are not significant enough to warrant discussion. Kr over Kh was the most significant of those.

PhilW wrote:I hope so. If you're not, there are a number of other places where you have favoured clarity over brevity; I'm hesitant to point them all out for fear of making the list less readable; Please just give in

Backward compatibility also desirable, so reluctant to fold on CR and MC....

I'm not sure what gets damaged by sacrificing backward compatibility in the Croft and Messias cases. With hindsight, CrR would have been a more clear and consistent choice of abbreviation. A once in a lifetime opportunity presents itself now, to correct a previous misstep.